Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Moderation in Atheism & Agnosticism Thread

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Calhoun wrote: »
    What about these types of posts? would they be a personal attack or not?

    Admittedly the poster that these were referring to was being OTT themselves to a point but they had some point in what they were saying. The attacks in these posts were pointed and directly attacking the poster, the excuse used was they wanted to teach this person a lesson for what was perceived as spiteful digs.

    The posts referring to luke's mom were OTT. As stated in the above quoted mod post (just a few posts up). Just because the OP's was open to a particular line of questioning didn't mean that other posters were. Luke should never have been mentioned. Even if people only wished to point out how acerbic they felt Lukesmom's comments were. The thread's bias against the OP was inevitable, as they had actively opened discussion on their personal life. Lukesmon' hadn't.


  • Options
    #33
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Cabaal wrote: »
    GreeBo, I think you should have been more upfront about this thread. Clearly you appear to have more of an issue with me and my posts. Your views of my posts are hardly unbiased given you're actively involved in the thread in question.

    Excuse me?
    Reign in the ego a bit there chief.
    I have a problem with what I see as selective moderation on a thread, specifically in favour of mode/admins who are pro "the prevailing viewpoint"

    The fact that your posts appear here says much more about you than me imo.

    My opinion is entirely unbiased, I was not on the receiving end of any moderators action, in that regard we are on the same side.


  • Options
    #34
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    The posts referring to luke's mom were OTT. As stated in the above quoted mod post (just a few posts up). Just because the OP's was open to a particular line of questioning didn't mean that other posters were. Luke should never have been mentioned. Even if people only wished to point out how acerbic they felt Lukesmom's comments were. The thread's bias against the OP was inevitable, as they had actively opened discussion on their personal life. Lukesmon' hadn't.

    So why does this post of Cabaals
    Cabaal wrote: »
    Its a sad reflection on this society when you think that so many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children, from your previous post you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either.

    Of course some don't, they just tick the boxes and go along with stuff for the sake of social conformity.

    go ignored, when it flies directly in the face of what you just said above.
    Again, if I was another poster I may feel that he was being afforded special leniency either due to his viewpoint matching the forum mods or that he himself is a mod (albeit of another forum)


  • Options
    #35
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Totally agree but i am pointing out that from start to finish there has been a very caustic thread.

    Don't get me wrong i have allot of respect for the OP for standing up for his little girl but the behavior in the thread from start to finish is quite questionable.

    Like you talk about the warning but we are back to talking about how another parent is raising their child? these were taken from today after the warning was given. Yet again its the equivalent of the no you response, on its own they dont look so bad but considering the earlier posts its like nothing changed.
    Cabaal wrote: »
    Its ok, Luke was indoctrinated into the right sort of belief.
    that makes everything all ok no matter what age the child is. :pac:

    But having a child at any age with no belief...pfft they are too young to understand that
    :rolleyes:
    vibe666 wrote: »
    but you pushed him through it anyway even though you thought he was too young?
    lazygal wrote: »
    Is seven too young for Luke to make up his mind about being catholic and receiving the sacrament of holy communion?


  • Options
    #36
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    GreeBo wrote: »

    My opinion is entirely unbiased, I was not on the receiving end of any moderators action, in that regard we are on the same side.

    Thats a pretty big claim and something you can't substanitate

    You've been actively involved in the thread. You can hardly claim an unbiased view of said thread,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Thats a pretty big claim and something you can't substanitate

    You've been actively involved in the thread. You can hardly claim an unbiased view of said thread,

    You made the claim, prove I am biased.
    I cant prove a negative.

    If I was biased, what am I biased about exactly?
    What on this thread that I started has any remote link to my opinion on that thread?


  • Options
    #38
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »
    "lots of posters on boards are pathetic and stupid and cant string a logical argument together, you appear to be one of them"
    Is that not a personal attack of exactly the same manner?

    Let's put it into the microscope, shall we?

    groups in society are pathetic,
    -nothing wrong there.
    they're illogical,
    -again nothing wrong not great wording.
    you're appear to be one of them.
    - personal attack.



    However, Cabaal's comment are subtly different.
    Its a sad reflection on this society when you think that so many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children
    His/her interpretation of the poster's own viewpoint - nothing wrong there.

    you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either.
    Given the posters past remarks in the thread that seems an open response. Not personal. If you comment in a thread outlining how you discipline your kids and then folks criticise your parenting you can't really consider it to be an ad hom attack. That's just trying to abuse mod powers to protect your viewpoints and censors legit discussion. In this case, the poster had posted their particular view on stuff relating to parenting, general attitudes of society and education that others choose to comment on those views is inevitable.


  • Options
    #39
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Let's put it into the microscope, shall we?

    groups in society are pathetic,
    -nothing wrong there.
    they're illogical,
    -again nothing wrong not great wording.
    you're appear to be one of them.
    - personal attack.



    However, Cabaal's comment are subtly different.
    Its a sad reflection on this society when you think that so many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children
    His/her interpretation of the poster's own viewpoint - nothing wrong there.

    you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either.
    Given the posters past remarks in the thread that seems an open response. Not personal. If you comment in a thread outlining how you discipline your kids and then folks criticise your parenting you can't really consider it to be an ad hom attack. That's just trying to abuse mod powers to protect your viewpoints and censors legit discussion. In this case, the poster had posted their particular view on stuff relating to parenting, general attitudes of society and education that others choose to comment on those views is inevitable.

    Can you not see how the prevailing anti-religion views may be clouding your judgement here?

    You think that because a poster is ok with their child being taught religion that this equates with them not caring about their childrens upbringing?
    Like seriously?

    I'm actually shocked that you think this is ok.
    Am I really the only one who has a problem with this?


  • Options
    #40
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    GreeBo wrote: »
    You made the claim, prove I am biased.
    I cant prove a negative.

    In short you had numerous posts with what I supposed could be referred to as the "opposite view" to what you call the "prevailing viewpoint".

    As such you cannot claim in anyway that you are unbiased...no more then I can claim I am unbiased. Of course you'd have a much more believable claim that you are unbiased if you were not involved in the thread.

    It would be silly for me to claim I'm unbiased as I also actively posted in the thread much as it is silly for you to make such a claim, but if you want to keep on claiming you're unbiased then by all means go right ahead..

    I would highlight that you referred to the OP's child's non-belief as "special needs", as I pointed out to you there is only one classification of special needs when it comes to the department of education...and its not the OP's child.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92120928&postcount=213

    Its evident there's more to this thread then a claim of "lack of moderation or special treatment", it looks like this thread now exists just as a chance to nit pick other users posts. While this may not have been your intention, its certainly what it seems to have turned into.

    As such I won't be wasting further time on it,


  • Options
    #41
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Totally agree but i am pointing out that from start to finish there has been a very caustic thread.

    Don't get me wrong i have allot of respect for the OP for standing up for his little girl but the behavior in the thread from start to finish is quite questionable.

    Like you talk about the warning but we are back to talking about how another parent is raising their child? these were taken from today after the warning was given. Yet again its the equivalent of the no you response, on its own they dont look so bad but considering the earlier posts its like nothing changed.

    Oh I agree, we may go through the thread and retrospectively card posters that ignored the warning. I'd bet that the mods haven't read the entire thread. I know I haven't. It was a quick moving 'un.

    As for the nature of the thread. It's an emotive issue, anything parenting related usually is. Throw in the concoction of religion and you've got well the perfect formula of personal beliefs and ideas. So caustic is to be expected and A&A always ebbs to the more lenient side of the scale. Unless posters blatantly overstep their mark they're sanctioned. This is why certain other posters are still posting in the thread. Many things calm themselves down spontaneously. We mostly only step in when the thread becomes of the chewy glass through barbed wire nature or there's a user who's crossed the line and then the event horizon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Cabaal wrote: »
    In short you had numerous posts with what I supposed could be referred to as the "opposite view" to what you call the "prevailing viewpoint".

    As such you cannot claim in anyway that you are unbiased...no more then I can claim I am unbiased.

    Infact it would be stupid for me to claim I'm unbiased as I also actively posted in the thread, but if you want to keep on claiming you're unbiased then by all means go right ahead..

    I would highlight that you referred to the OP's child's non-belief as "special needs", as I pointed out to you there is only one classification of special needs when it comes to the department of education,

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92120928&postcount=213

    Ok, you do realise that this is a different thread, with a totally different topic, right?

    One thread is about a child in school, we disagreed in that thread.
    This thread is about moderation, sure its about moderation in the other thread, but its a different topic.
    How can there be bias here?

    No I said a child had special needs not "special needs"
    I went on to painstakingly point out to you that the word "special" followed by the word "needs" doesnt automatically mean what your mind conjures up.

    Someone with a broken leg has special needs when they go to the cinema, they probably need a aisle seat.
    Please stop bringing unrelated points into this discussion to somehow defend your posts in the other thread.


  • Options
    #43
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »
    You think that because a poster is ok with their child being taught religion that this equates with them not caring about their childrens upbringing?

    :confused::confused::confused:
    We all have to suck it up,it is trivial really when you see the plight of the Palestinian Children.

    If a poster makes the following whataboutery statement can you seriously expect me to take mod action against another user who chooses to interpret that as that poster not particularly caring about this aspect of child care and education?

    Note: Aspects, not an absolute. If it was an absolute comment then i'd agree with you but there was no absolute statement made. It's the difference between calling certain views idiotic and calling the person a idiot. A subtle but very important difference!


  • Options
    #44
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Oh I agree, we may go through the thread and retrospectively card posters that ignored the warning. I'd bet that the mods haven't read the entire thread. I know I haven't. It was a quick moving 'un.

    As for the nature of the thread. It's an emotive issue, anything parenting related usually is. Throw in the concoction of religion and you've got well the perfect formula of personal beliefs and ideas. So caustic is to be expected and A&A always ebbs to the more lenient side of the scale. Unless posters blatantly overstep their mark they're sanctioned. This is why certain other posters are still posting in the thread. Many things calm themselves down spontaneously. We mostly only step in when the thread becomes of the chewy glass through barbed wire nature or there's a user who's crossed the line and then the event horizon.

    But mod action was taken, when the poster was warned prior to their banning, why did they ignore the two other posters who also ignored the mod warning?
    Is that not clearly biased modding, against those who dont follow the prevailing theme?


  • Options
    #45
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    :confused::confused::confused:


    If a poster makes the following whataboutery statement can you seriously expect me to take mod action against another user who chooses to interpret that as that poster not particularly caring about this aspect of child care and education?

    Note: Aspects, not an absolute. If it was an absolute comment then i'd agree with you but there was no absolute statement made. It's the difference between calling certain views idiotic and calling the person a idiot. A subtle but very important difference!
    Ok, please show me what posts would lead you to believe that the poster doesnt care about their childrens upbringing.


    To be frank, you arguing the difference between absolutes and aspects smacks of closemindedness to protect the prevailing view.

    Can I say that lots of people are bigoted in their opinions, your argument here leads me to believe that you are one of these people.
    Is that "aspect-oriented" enough to be an acceptable statement for me to make?

    Im starting to think that further discussion with the mods of the forum in question is pointless all all defence seems to be based on the "Atheism is good" standpoint.
    I'll wait for others to comment.


  • Options
    #46
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I'm really struggling to understand your posts. Distinctions are mightily important when it comes to enforcing the rules. If one poster says they suck it up and another interprets that as they don't care strongly enough I can't pull up the other one for that interpretation. They made the comment. It's open to critique. It's not a direct personal attack.

    "Everyone has idiotic opinions, doesn't mean they're actual idiots." Do you agree with statement?

    Can I say that lots of people are bigoted in their opinions, your argument here leads me to believe that you are one of these people.
    Is that "aspect-oriented" enough to be an acceptable statement for me to make?

    No you can't. Bigot is a personal attack. However, if the poster made a series of posts that are racist or bigoted or sexists then it's a more open question. For the record, in A&A currently on matters of gay marriage we still prohibit the use of the word bigot but it's something that is being continually discussed because some posts are indeed bigoted.

    As an aside:
    Atheism is whatever it is. I wouldn't say it's good or bad, I'd say neutral?


    Regarding the ignoring. It looks like Rob tackled Cabaal and Weathering simulataneously. As for ignoring, or appearing to ignore, I don't know. Maybe they didn't see my warning, maybe they opted to be lenient. Maybe the pace of the thread caught them, maybe they were biased, maybe they were only the skimming the thread, maybe. . . I dunno. In time I'm sure they'll give their account of what occurred too.


  • Options
    #47
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    I'm really struggling to understand your posts. Distinctions are mightily important when it comes to enforcing the rules. If one poster says they suck it up and another interprets that as they don't care strongly enough I can't pull up the other one for that interpretation. They made the comment. It's open to critique. It's not a direct personal attack.

    "Everyone has idiotic opinions, doesn't mean they're actual idiots." Do you agree with statement?

    Can I say that lots of people are bigoted in their opinions, your argument here leads me to believe that you are one of these people.
    Is that "aspect-oriented" enough to be an acceptable statement for me to make?

    No you can't. Bigot is a personal attack. However, if the poster made a series of posts that are racist or bigoted or sexists then it's a more open question. For the record, in A&A currently on matters of gay marriage we still prohibit the use of the word bigot but it's something that is being continually discussed because some posts are indeed bigoted.
    I'll ask again, show me where the poster says they dont care about their childs upbringing.
    If you said that to me I'd take it as an attack on me as a parent, I dont think Im alone with this opinion.

    Turtwig wrote: »
    As an aside:
    Atheism is whatever it is. I wouldn't say it's good or bad, I'd say neutral?
    The problem is that the moderation doesnt appear to be neutral.
    those that dont agree get moderated and those that toe the line do what the want, or at least have a longer leash.
    Turtwig wrote: »
    Regarding the ignoring. It looks like Rob tackled Cabaal and Weathering simulataneously. As for ignoring, or appearing to ignore, I don't know. Maybe they didn't see my warning, maybe they opted to be lenient. Maybe the pace of the thread caught them, maybe they were biased, maybe they were only the skimming the thread, maybe. . . I dunno. In time I'm sure they'll give their account of what occurred too.

    I'm starting to think Im imagining thing here.
    You can see Robs post where he warns them both to stop, you can see where weathering doesnt stop and gets a personal warning, yet you cant see where Cabaal continues and receives nothing? Even though its the very next post?


  • Options
    #48
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'll ask again, show me where the poster says they dont care about their childs upbringing.
    If you said that to me I'd take it as an attack on me as a parent, I dont think Im alone with this opinion.



    I'm starting to think Im imagining thing here.
    You can see Robs post where he warns them both to stop, you can see where weathering doesnt stop and gets a personal warning, yet you cant see where Cabaal continues and receives nothing? Even though its the very next post?

    Popularity of opinions doesn't matter. The poster never said they don't care about their child upbringing. Nor did Cabaal imply they didn't.

    As for how you perceive connotations, that's how you perceive them. I perceive them differently. I don't see the statement that a poster doesn't care about their child's upbringing said or implied anywhere. I only see a statement saying the poster doesn't appear to care about certain aspects of their child upbringing. Given their comments in the threads, whether I agree with cabaal or not, I can't sanction a comment on the subject matter of the thread.

    As a conflict of interest, my opinion would be alone the line of cabaals so maybe there is some blindness there, either way I'm not yet convinced by your illustration of it. The fact that you disagree over aspects versus absolutes makes it harder for me. To me, aspects are wholly different from absolute statement. Especially when it's aspects relevant to a thread topic.


    Generally speaking, we're not pedantic, we don't sanction posts directly after a mod post. We leave a time lapse. See Orion's post in the thread.
    Cabaal may still be sanctioned. We haven't reviewed the thread yet.


  • Options
    #49
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Popularity of opinions doesn't matter. The poster never said they don't care about their child upbringing. Nor did Cabaal imply they didn't.

    As for how you perceive connotations, that's how you perceive them. I perceive them differently. I don't see the statement that a poster doesn't care about their child's upbringing said or implied anywhere. I only see a statement saying the poster doesn't appear to care about certain aspects of their child upbringing. Given their comments in the threads, whether I agree with cabaal or not, I can't sanction a comment on the subject matter of the thread.

    As a conflict of interest, my opinion would be alone the line of cabaals so maybe there is some blindness there, either way I'm not yet convinced by your illustration of it. The fact that you disagree over aspects versus absolutes makes it harder for me. To me, aspects are wholly different from absolute statement. Especially when it's aspects relevant to a thread topic.


    "many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children, from your previous post you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either."

    So that doesnt imply the poster doesnt care about their childs upbringing, but it does state that they dont "appear" to care about their childs upbringing?

    Is that seriously the line that you draw on the A&A forum?
    Just what lengths will you go to to defend the pro A&A posters?

    Turtwig wrote: »
    Generally speaking, we're not pedantic, we don't sanction posts directly after a mod post. We leave a time lapse. See Orion's post in the thread.
    Cabaal may still be sanctioned. We haven't reviewed the thread yet.
    Are you even reading the examples I am posting.
    Weathering was warned again IMMEDIATELY after the joint warning, THE VERY NEXT post was by Cabaal but was ignored by the Mods.
    Go read the damn links I posted for crying out loud.

    This is beyond ridiculous, in fact Im out until a non A&A poster chimes in.


  • Options
    #50
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    GreeBo wrote: »
    This is beyond ridiculous, in fact Im out until a non A&A poster chimes in.

    Hello :)

    Why are you in A&A if you want to avoid ridiculousness?!


  • Options
    #51
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »
    "many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children, from your previous post you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either."

    So that doesnt imply the poster doesnt care about their childs upbringing, but it does state that they dont "appear" to care about their childs upbringing?

    Is that seriously the line that you draw on the A&A forum?
    Just what lengths will you go to to defend the pro A&A posters?

    Aspects is an incredibly important word.

    Yes it is, but it's not the strawman line you're reproducing everytime.

    It's also the Christianity forum's line.

    Considering I've sanctioned many of the posters in both fora and have some on borderline ban's I don't think it's fair to say I defend pro A&A posters. I'd like to think that most poster that go against the status quo of the A&A forum or of a particular thread think i'm impartial when it comes to modding. (I'd like to most posters of all types do! :p) I've made mistakes. We all do. But, there's no way in hell I'm defending pro A&A posters. I just flat out stated to you that the use of Luke via analogy was wrong.

    Fwiw, I thought you had some valid points but your example, the one I quoted and started this to and fro isn't what I'd consider a personal attack.
    Weathering was warned again IMMEDIATELY after the joint warning, THE VERY NEXT post was by Cabaal but was ignored by the Mods.
    Go read the damn links I posted for crying out loud.

    He wasn't warned again. Rob just asked him to make note of the post above his. To ensure he'd seen it. It wasn't just an escalation just a please pretty pretty please take note that you're over the line.
    Cabaal's comment about shutting the door was OTT, but that wasn't his very next post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Aspects is an incredibly important word.

    Yes it is, but it's not the strawman line you're reproducing everytime.

    Fwiw, I thought you had some valid points but your example, the one I quoted and started this to and fro isn't what I'd consider a personal attack.
    I'm sorry but I just cannot agree that sticking an "appears" in front of an attack somehow makes it ok.
    Would it be an actionable post if Cabaal hadnt said "appears" in his statement?
    What makes something an "aspect"?
    Turtwig wrote: »
    He wasn't warned again. Rob just asked him to make note of the post above his. To ensure he'd seen it.
    Cabaal's comment about shutting the door was OTT, but that wasn't his very next post.

    Why wasnt Cabaals post quoted and he asked to make note of the post above?
    His post was exactly on the same topic that Rob had warned them both on and specifically "noted" to Weathering.
    How is that not inconsistent?


  • Options
    #53
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'm sorry but I just cannot agree that sticking an "appears" in front of an attack somehow makes it ok.
    Would it be an actionable post if Cabaal hadnt said "appears" in his statement?
    What makes something an "aspect"?



    Why wasnt Cabaals post quoted and he asked to make note of the post above?
    His post was exactly on the same topic that Rob had warned them both on and specifically "noted" to Weathering.
    How is that not inconsistent?

    The word appears isn't really relevant here. "Aspects" is the key qualifier. The poster posted their opinion on aspects of parenting, childcare and education. It's then fair game for those aspects to be criticised - within reason. Not a personal attack.

    I don't know exactly why events happened like they did. I think I wasn't even online then. Not sure? However, Cabaal's seems to be an attempt at reconcilation "No I wasn't personally insulting you". Weathering's was just adding even more spice to the pot. I'm just guessing though. Don't know specifically why.


  • Options
    #54
    andyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭andyman


    I haven't read the thread in question, but if a mod (or anyone) told me that I don't care about the upbringing of my children then I'd consider that a personal attack.

    It's condescending, it's the viewpoint that because I don't agree with that person then I'm doing my parenting all wrong and it's provocative. Totally uncalled for and for a forum like A&A which is tough to run, I would be of the opinion that comments like that shouldn't be allowed.

    I'm very surprised that a comment like that has gone unpunished (if indeed it has).


  • Options
    #55
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    The word appears isn't really relevant here. "Aspects" is the key qualifier. The poster posted their opinion on aspects of parenting, childcare and education. It's then fair game for those aspects to be criticised - within reason. Not a personal attack.

    Ok, lets follow your line of logic.

    Lets take the absolute first.
    I care absolutely about my childs upbringing.
    If you state that there are some aspects that I dont care about then by definition I cannot absolutely care about my childs upbringing.

    You are stating, with no qualification, that I dont absolutely & totally care about my childs upbringing.

    Im sure if I said that someone didnt 100% care about their child that it would be a personal attack, yet I can just rejig the wording, keeping the EXACT same meaning, and all is good, simply because I worded it different.

    Put it another way, I dont think that you are wrong, its just that you are not in any way right.


  • Options
    #56
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Ok, lets follow your line of logic.

    Lets take the absolute first.
    I care absolutely about my childs upbringing.
    If you state that there are some aspects that I dont care about then by definition I cannot absolutely care about my childs upbringing.

    You are stating, with no qualification, that I dont absolutely & totally care about my childs upbringing.

    Im sure if I said that someone didnt 100% care about their child that it would be a personal attack, yet I can just rejig the wording, keeping the EXACT same meaning, and all is good, simply because I worded it different.

    Put it another way, I dont think that you are wrong, its just that you are not in any way right.

    Ok let's get the elephant in the room out of the way. Is it possible that Cabaal intended to insult the poster's parenting abilities? Yes, of course. But a mod can't do go looking for intentions and ulterior motives unless there's a strong series of indications that there is one. Even then such an approach is wrought with potential for errors.

    I care absolutely about my childs upbringing.
    If you state that there are some aspects that I dont care about then by definition I cannot absolutely care about my childs upbringing.


    This is again not relevant. The poster isn't saying you don't care about your child upbringings. They're saying from the comments made you don't care about aspects of your child's upbringing. That's a conclusion they're entitled to make from posts in the thread. Same goes for pet owners commenting on how they look after their pets, or by extension, how others should look after their pets. Though, obviously, I have no clue how the animal forum mods these. Nor have any intention to say how they should.

    That you or someone else draws the non sequitur isn't that poster's fault. Your intentions as a parent aren't being questioned. Only the actions which you have actively expressed a viewpoint on are.. As long as this is the case I don't see the problem. Otherwise it's arguing behind a veil of censorship.

    If someone goes into the creationism thread and says "You're an awful parent" or "you don't care about aspects of child raring" they'll most likely be sanctioned. I can't state absolutely so of course, because nothing is eternally black and white. Context is always key. 99% of the time though they will be.


  • Options
    #57
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    The only elephant in the room is the circle-jerk mentality of moderators being mesmerised by collective naval gazing and back-patting, using the self-congratulating rationale of wilfuly unthinking models of their own perceived superiority to excuse the dismal results of their own lack of a moral compass.


  • Options
    #58
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I gotta hand it to you that was beautifully written.


  • Options
    #59
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    catallus wrote: »
    The only elephant in the room is the circle-jerk mentality of moderators being mesmerised by collective naval gazing and back-patting, using the self-congratulating rationale of wilfuly unthinking models of their own perceived superiority to excuse the dismal results of their own lack of a moral compass.

    Yahtzee!


  • Options
    #60
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,031 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Ok let's get the elephant in the room out of the way. Is it possible that Cabaal intended to insult the poster's parenting abilities? Yes, of course. But a mod can't do go looking for intentions and ulterior motives unless there's a strong series of indications that there is one. Even then such an approach is wrought with potential for errors.

    I care absolutely about my childs upbringing.
    If you state that there are some aspects that I dont care about then by definition I cannot absolutely care about my childs upbringing.


    This is again not relevant. The poster isn't saying you don't care about your child upbringings. They're saying from the comments made you don't care about aspects of your child's upbringing. That's a conclusion they're entitled to make from posts in the thread. Same goes for pet owners commenting on how they look after their pets, or by extension, how others should look after their pets. Though, obviously, I have no clue how the animal forum mods these. Nor have any intention to say how they should.

    That you or someone else draws the non sequitur isn't that poster's fault. Your intentions as a parent aren't being questioned. Only the actions which you have actively expressed a viewpoint on are.. As long as this is the case I don't see the problem. Otherwise it's arguing behind a veil of censorship.

    If someone goes into the creationism thread and says "You're an awful parent" or "you don't care about aspects of child raring" they'll most likely be sanctioned. I can't state absolutely so of course, because nothing is eternally black and white. Context is always key. 99% of the time though they will be.

    Logically you cannot care absolutely care about your childs upbringing if there are parts you dont care about.
    Absolute is 100%, if there is some percentage that you dont care about, then you cannot care about 100%. Its maths.
    So indeed Cabaal was directly stating that the other poster did not absolutely care about their childs upbringing. Thats basic logic.

    Can you come up with any other reason for Cabaals post other than to insult the poster regarding their care for their childs upbringing?
    I dont really think you have to look very far or hard to find intention in that post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    The only elephant in the room is the circle-jerk mentality of moderators being mesmerised by collective naval gazing and back-patting, using the self-congratulating rationale of wilfuly unthinking models of their own perceived superiority to excuse the dismal results of their own lack of a moral compass.

    Weren't you banned from A&A?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement